But, if humans are still evolving, especially in intelligence, as some scientists state, then in a purely simplistic, anecdotal, and basic Darwinian approach, it could be presumed, for example, that the difference between a Harvard educated lawyer vis-a-vis the crew of gentlemen who pick-up and dispose of your garbage every Wednesday, and disregarding extraneous factors such as family wealth, societal positions, affirmative action, etc., is the result of natural selection of intelligence. And I do apologize if I have offended any garbage collectors by mentioning their vocation in the same sentence as Harvard lawyers.

Every once in a while, something so dramatic, so scientifically astonishing comes along that it gives purist Darwinians and their natural selection theorem great pause and discomfort. But this stupefaction does lend much more credence to Kropotkin’s cooperation theory as a survival mechanism in human societies. In layman’s terms, large groups of stupid people can survive with the aid of mutual cooperation, thus eliminating their abysmal chances of competing and surviving on their own.

Now along comes Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who slipped through the evolutionary stupid net, and is the poster child for Kropotkin’s cooperation theory.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Congresswoman from Florida, and the Chair of the Democratic National Convention, has singlehandedly confirmed Kropotkin’s survival by cooperation as a scientific fact rather than theory. Schultz was elected by the majority of a league of humans who share the same defective cerebral traits and characteristics that would not be conducive for individual survival, and a large league of politicians who anointed her to the current position as their leader, who also share the same defective cerebral traits.

A list of the manifestations of Debbie’s defective and individually unsurvivable cerebral shortcomings:

• Senior citizens will die under Paul Ryan’s budget;
• Federal judges should be appointed based on their ability to feel people’s pain rather than their judicial qualifications;
• At the peak of the Obama-extended recession, she stated that the economy was turning around as GDP, unemployment, foreclosures, and every other economic indicator demonstrated that the economy was tanking;
• She has stated that she represents one of the largest African-American Jewish gay populations in the U.S., which happens to be in south Florida;
• She stated that her Florida district will be covered in salt water if we don’t stop global warming now;
• She blamed the Democrats for being soundly thrashed from the local to federal levels in the 2010 election cycle by “not articulating their accomplishments, to the voters” [sic];
• Regarding Obama’s $1 billion dollar stimulus package that was needed to prevent the jobless rate from rising above 8%, and thus promptly rising to over 10%, she stated, “The mantra that the Recovery Act did not work is such baloney.”

For the sake of brevity, the list was judiciously forced into truncation, as its bounds are mathematically incapable of being determined, and the need to focus on the current state of Debbie Wasserman Schultz is scientifically imperative. Ensuing is an excerpt of Debbie Wasserman Schultz being interviewed by Gretchen Carlson regarding the current state of the record-breaking string of 34 months of unemployment over 8% since 1948. Debbie was gasping for breath during the interview, as she had been jumping and jumping, leaping and leaping, and trying her best to reach the bottom rung of the intelligence food chain ladder:

Gretchen Carlson, FOX News: Unemployment has gone up precipitously since he (Obama) took office.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair: That is simply not true. In fact, unemployment has now dropped below 9%. It’s continuing to drop. He’s been focused on…

Carlson: It’s higher than when they promised the stimulus would lower it to 8%.

Wasserman Schultz: You see, that narrative doesn’t work for you anymore, though, because…

Carlson: It’s not my narrative. I’m just talking about facts.

Wasserman Schultz: You just said the unemployment rate is going up since Obama took office, and it hasn’t…

Carlson: Is unemployment higher since President Obama took office?

Wasserman Schultz: What’s happened since President Obama took office…

Carlson: Is unemployment higher than when he took office?

Wasserman Schultz: Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it’s dropping. You just said it’s been increasing and that’s not true.

This exchange is the unfortunate result of always staring above from the bottom of the intellectual food chain. Now if Debbie had a fully functional and evolutionary updated cerebral apparatus between her ears, this is what she would have said:

As you know, Gretchen, Barack Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. The number of unemployed Americans on that fateful date was 7.8%. The number of people with jobs on that fateful day, in thousands, was 133,563.

Then our President, Barack Obama, proceeded to grift this nation of cowards, with no discernible evidence, demanding that he needed to pass a $1 billion dollar stimulus package to prevent unemployment from cresting 8%. This stimulus package was passed, then the unemployment rate accelerated to 10%, dragging his stimulus package with it.

Just last month, the beguiled government calculus for determining the unemployment rate presented to the uninformed public, and my league of evolutionary challenged liberals, led to the good news that the unemployment rate dropped from 9% to 8.6%, despite setting a record high joblessness length of 41 straight weeks. An integral part of the government’s calculus is to dissever the workers who quit looking for jobs, and those whose unemployment benefits have run their course. Now Gretchen, of course any non-progressive or liberal knows that the undeniable unemployment rate is around 16%, but when you can manufacture a mathematical calculus that does not count 315,000 workers who gave up looking for work, or those whose unemployment benefits have run their course, of course you can get an 8.6% unemployment rate. In fact, Gretchen, I am not surprised that the Obama administration did not come up with an unemployment rate of 1.7% considering the endless opportunities of eliminating certain factions of the unemployed.

Keep in mind Gretchen, that this November, this past November of 2011, almost three years since Obama took office, the number of Americans employed is, in thousands, 131,708–a drop from 133,563 employed on the day Obama was inaugurated. Gretchen, can you reconcile that number with the claim by Obama that the unemployment rate has dropped? I can’t. Or from another angle, the number of Americans not in the labor force when Obama took office was, in thousands, 80,554, and the number currently not in the labor force, in thousands, 86,558.

Barack Obama and the Democrats’ policies are adding about 100,000 jobs per month; the United States currently has 13.3 million unemployed. Now here is the math, Gretchen: At the current trajectory of adding jobs, it would take 11 years to employee the 13.3 million jobless Americans, and this would have to include the impossibility that nothing changes, and something always changes. Also, Obama and the Democrats are the proud owners of GDP growth of 1.9% in the first quarter of 2011, 1.3% in the second quarter, and 1.8% in the third quarter. Now Gretchen, as you know, it takes a GDP growth rate of a minimum of 3% to keep unemployment from trending up, and a minimum of a 125,000 newly created jobs per month just to keep pace with our population growth. Obama and the Democrats will need at least a GDP growth rate of 5% to have a significant impact on the unemployment rate. When Obama is overcome with jubilation, and dancing about on Pennsylvania Avenue about his increase of 100,000 jobs, keep in mind that 100,000 jobs does not even keep up with our population growth. With an average GDP growth rate of 3.28 since 1947, our economy needs at least a 3-3.5% GDP growth rate to be healthy, and Obama and the Democrats’ policies are producing an average GDP growth rate under 2%, well you do the math.

Remember also, Gretchen, that two quarters of negative GDP growth rate is technically a recession, but the impact of a recession starts with several quarters of a slowing GDP growth rate. Barack Obama and the Democrats’ policies have caused the GDP growth rate to decline from a high of 3.5% in 2010 to a consistent and steady drop for the past six quarters.

Wow, Gretchen, where is your shredder? I’m shredding my official Democratic Party membership card now, live on the air.

Of course this is all silly, as we know that Debbie does not have a fully functional and evolutionary updated cerebral apparatus between her ears. But if she did, she might want to ponder this question: Was the country better off under Bush’s recession with unemployment at 7.8%, or Obama’s miraculous recovery with an unemployment rate of 9.0%?

There is one important accolade I must bestow upon Debbie Wasserman Schultz: however intellectually defective she may be, however far down the intellectual food chain she is, she can comfortably look over her shoulder and know that the Republican Party, and its presidential primary process is several steps behind her, showing characteristics of prokaryotes.

The draft:

What do Alger Hiss, Bill Clinton, Martha Stewart, and Scooter Libby have in common? They were all amateurishly convicted of perjury. Perjury can be defined several ways, but its marrow is thus: willfully giving false testimony, oath, or affirmation, written or spoken, regarding material matters before a judicial or legal inquiry. The ambiguity of certain words in this definition are pivotal in circumventing the culpability of fabrication. “Willfully…false…oath…affirmation…written…spoken…regarding…material matters…before…judicial…legal…a… or…inquiry,” are words that can have significantly different meanings to different people depending on interpretation and state of mind. My motto is: “Actus non facitreum nisi mens sit rea,” meaning “the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.” This book will give you the tools to cleanse your mind of perceivable guilt, completely erase the appearance of guilt, and project a clear conscience to your adversaries, thus making you immune to perjury conviction(s).

Remember, it’s only perjury if you are convicted.

With my simple five-step system, I will show you how to virtually eliminate the possibility of being prosecuted for perjury, and guarantee an acquittal in the rare event you are tried for perjury. Knock on wood.

This five-step system is not for the squeamish. You will be lying, everyone will know you are lying, you will know that everyone knows you are lying, everyone will know that you know that everyone knows that you are lying, but that is irrelevant if they can’t prove you are lying. I will give you the tools to not be distracted by bothersome interrogations, and to not let the finger pointing and name calling ruin your day. Just believe, believe you are not lying.

As of this writing, I am being subjected to hearing after hearing by Congress, and daily harassment by right-wingers regarding Operation Fast and Furious, the operation that I was never aware existed at least in my mind. Naturally these fanatical doctrinaires are attempting to use the hundreds of emails, memos, conversations, witnesses, etc., to demonstrate that I was aware of the full scale of the operation. But with the employment of my five-step system, I have, quite frankly, convinced myself that I have never heard the words “Operation Fast and Furious” until the past couple of weeks.

The five-steps you will learn from this book are…

1. A Simple Misunderstanding. Regardless of how simple and direct a question you are asked, there is no law against misunderstanding the question, and answering the question with an answer that would apply to another question you have created in your mind. I will show you how I turned the tables with an answer to a different question that I feel should have been asked.

2. State of Mind. Your state of mind when answering a question will determine if your answer is an intentional lie. You will learn to control your state of mind, and with this, confuse your interrogators by dismantling any prejudiced definition of perjury that may adversely affect you.

3. Blame it on Bush. This is the genius stratagem created by the Democratic Party, and is still the preferred default by Barack Obama for his failed polices three years after Bush left office.

4. Can’t Read Everything. Who has the time? I’m an important person, you’re an important person, should we be expected to read every single memo, email, briefing, etc. that comes across our desks each day?

5. The Nuclear Option. This is perhaps the most powerful, but can take a decade or more to implement. I started seriously implementing this tactic during the Clinton administration. You will need at least a ten-year trail of unadulterated incompetence. If you can make yourself appear too stupid to do your job, then the natural assumption would be that you are too stupid to create a sophisticated web of deceit.

Step One: A Simple Misunderstanding

No matter what the question, how straightforward, or how simple, your answer can’t incriminate you if you obviously misunderstood the question, and in fact, were answering another question that you created in your mind.

Take for example when Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, asked me the following question under oath:

ISSA: This program, as you know – and the President’s been asked about it, you’ve been asked about it – allowed for weapons to be sold to straw purchasers, and ultimately, many of those weapons are today in the hands of drug cartels and other criminals. When did you first know about the program, officially, I believe, called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?

Me: I’m not sure of the exact date but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.

Now this was on May 3, 2011, but there is myriad documented evidence that show I was well aware of Fast and Furious at least ten months prior to this question. Now this may seem like a slam-dunk case of me committing perjury, but not if I was answering a different question. In my mind, I was answering a completely different question than the one posed by Issa. The Justice Department,  of which I am the leader, is on record stating my apparent perjury regarding the emails and memos associating me with Operation Fast and Furious was a simple misunderstanding of the question. In my mind, I thought Issa was asking about Operation Fast and Furious, not the flawed tactics of Fast and Furious of giving 2000 weapons to dangerous Mexican drug cartels that were ultimately used in crimes and murders on both sides of the border. There is a difference. He really should have been more clear and I would not have answered the question incorrectly. It also does not hurt matters to always be out of the loop on what is happening within your own department.

Step Two: State of Mind

Back in February, I sent a letter to Congress explaining that Operation Fast and Furious did not let guns “walk” into Mexico. It never happened as far as my mind is concerned. Walking guns. Where did they think I was going with that? After the “evidence” started piling-up “implicating” me and the Department of Justice of “purposely” allowing 2000 guns to go directly into the hands of murderous Mexican drug cartels, which produced a string of dead Mexican and US citizens, and a murdered Border Patrol agent, it would seem like an open and shut case. But not so fast. I have taken the unprecedented step of withdrawing that letter, making that letter of perjured denial irrelevant.

Now when Rep. James Sensenbrenner asked me, “What are you going to do to clean up this mess?,” as truthfully as my state of mind would allow, I said, “Well, first let me make something very clear: nobody in the Justice Department has lied. Nobody.”

Then when he asked why I withdrew the letter, I said, “The letter was withdrawn because the information in there was inaccurate.” Inaccuracy is not equal with lying, even if the inaccurate statements were intentional and meant to mislead.

Then Sensenbrenner starting splitting hairs with his next question:“Tell me what’s the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?” This is when I got all legal on him, and bewildered him with my state of mind answer:

Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie. The information that was provided by the February 4^th letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information.

Did I have a requisite intent of lying when I lied? When you start “gleaning” and “interact with people” who you “thought” because of their “position” to have the “information,” it can become very confusing and really affects your state of mind.

Step Three: Blame it on Bush

Listen: Blaming everything on Bush has served Obama and the Democratic Party very well for many years, and still has another 10-15 years of life left in it.

In a letter that I sent to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I pulled the “recollection” card. I stated, “I have no recollection of knowing about ‘Fast and Furious’ or of hearing its name prior to the public controversy about it.” This allowed me to then pull the self-investigation card, which will derail the train of thought of the most steadfast inquirer, and give credence to bizarre and vague answers: “I have not spoken at length on this subject out of deference to the review being conducted at my request.”

Of course this was a setup for the money maker: “It has become clear that the flawed tactics employed in Fast and Furious were not limited to that operation and were actually employed in an investigation conducted during the prior administration (Bush’s fault).” I was making a not-so-veiled reference to Bush’s Operation Wide Receiver. Even though Operation Wide Receiver was the surveillance of the illegal transfer of goods, then the arrest of all parties involved as soon as the crime was consummated, Bush still had something to do with those 2000 guns “walking” through Operation Fast and Furious.

Step Four: Can’t Read Them All

You’re a busy person, I’m a busy person, who has time to read all their emails, memos, and daily briefings? I certainly don’t. When I filed the lawsuit against the state of Arizona regarding its immigration bill SB1070, I publicly admitted that I never attempted to read the ten-page bill, I filed the lawsuit just because. Of course there are myriad paper trails that show I was inundated with emails, memos, and daily briefings regarding Fast and Furious. That doesn’t mean I read them. Who has the time? Unless someone actually saw me read anything regarding Fast and Furious, there is no irrefutable proof that I actually read any of the plethora of communications I received about putting thousands of guns in the hands of violent Mexican Drug Cartels, and the death and destruction it caused. I just never got around to reading all of them. It’s a matter of prioritizing things, and reading the important emails, memos, and daily briefings will always take precedence over distractions such as Fast and Furious. If you didn’t read it, you’re not responsible.

Step Five: Nuclear Option

The Nuclear Option is a little trickier than the others, and much more complex. It works in conjunction with steps one through four. But it takes an enormous amount of forethought and long-range planning. I started my Nuclear Option back in 2001. You have to cultivate a history of being so incompetent that it is hard to tell if you are lying, too stupid to run your department, or just too damn incompetent to orchestrate a sophisticated string of lies.

As Deputy Attorney General, I “recommended” that Marc Rich circumvent standard procedure and protocol to be granted a presidential pardon directly from Bill Clinton. In his last days of office, Clinton pardoned Rich for making oil deals with Iran with the Ayatollah Khomeini, and evading $48 million in US taxes. Rich was also on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list, and even made the Justice Department’s  Most Wanted International Fugitive list. Can a higher level of incompetence be demonstrated?

I also recommended that Clinton grant clemency to 16 members of the Boricua Popular Army, who were serving time in prison for acts of terrorism, bombings, bank robberies, and a sundry of other crimes against the United States. The FBI and federal prosecutors were saying no, no, no, but Clinton and I granted clemency against their whining opposition. Another fine feather in the incompetence cap.

There were numerous other selfish acts of unadulterated incompetence that are too bountiful for me to recall leading up to the time I was confirmed as the Attorney General of the United States. Shortly after being confirmed, to set in action the Nuclear Option for situations such as Operation Fast and Furious, I called the United States a “nation of cowards.” There was a lot of squawking about that one from the cowards.

I then proceeded to drop all the charges against the New Black Panther Party for intimidating white voters at a voting booth with clubs and threats of violence and generally making them feel that they would be clubbed like baby seals if they voted for John McCain at a black-only poll.

Once it looked like the whole gun walking thing was going to be a big stink, I decided it was time to up the stakes. I always wanted to be a king, and now I decided to play one and see how that would go over with this nation of cowards. I decided I would determine what federal laws were constitutional and which ones were not rather than deferring to the Supreme Court. The Defense of Marriage Act was the first one to get the constitutional axe. I just refused to defend it. I then decided to hound Gibson Guitars to hell and back for no reason at all– raiding their warehouses, taking their inventory, interrupting their production of guitars, job losses, losing money, etc. I’m not sure of the exact numbers, but I’m pretty sure I have initiated a lawsuit against every state in the union for legal justifications I’m not really sure exist.

There is a positive collateral bonus from demonstrating this level of incompetence for an entire career, as Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Janet Napolitano, Joe Biden, Kathleen Sebelius, half the Supreme Court, Hilda Solis, Barack Obama, especially Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and too many more to name, can attest to: the opportunities within the Democratic Party are virtually limitless.

Does the person described above seem remotely capable of a labyrinth of sophisticated perjury? Of course not, but rather the thoughts of how did this person ever graduate school, much less law school, and how was he continually promoted with such a record of incompetence? Well, sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never keep me from advancing in the Democratic Party.

It is all too obvious that I have lied and misled pretty much as far back as I can remember, and have been an abysmal failure as Attorney General, but I’m still here, and that is what counts. Guns need to be controlled, and what better way to help that legislation along than to put a couple thousand weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, and let the mayhem begin. Sure it was a political ploy of creating artificially created gun crimes that would never have happened if not for me, and will backfire on my underlings and cost them their careers, but whose fault is that? It’s theirs for not using my five-step method, but you, dear reader, can be shielded from each and every instance of perjury you commit with this book.

It took a world-class teleprompter reader, the most intelligent President ever, and the greatest uniter in the history of the universe to make manifest the similarities between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street syndicate. Barack Obama’s teleprompter connected the affiliation of an ever-increasing pack of feral vagabonds and a well-organized and civil political movement with the insight and aplomb of a Greek Sophist: “I understand the frustrations being expressed in those protests. In some ways, they’re not that different from some of the protests that we saw coming from the Tea Party.”

But Obama is not alone with his affection regarding the Occupy Wall Street syndicate and its annihilative swath of destruction of city parks, local businesses, local homeowners, and general civility. Like maggots to rotting flesh, the various cankers of the Democratic Party have scampered to be the first to endorse the Occupy Wall Street syndicate. No organized or unorganized dynamism of unadulterated imbecility and chaos would be legitimate without an endorsement from Nancy Pelosi. Then there are the endorsements of the usual suspects of anarchy, chaos, and American degeneration: American Nazi Party, the Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and a hodgepodge of Democratic politicians grasping for the opportunity of political expediency at the expense of decency.

Where might this assemblage of intellectually deplete vagrants have procured their foundation and moral and intellectual compass? The Matriarch of Mayhem, the Beelzebub of Communism, the Pedagogue of Obtuseness at Harvard Law, and the Democratic Senate candidate from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. Warren claims responsibility for the spawning of Occupy Wall Street: “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do. I support what they do.”

The participators in Occupy Wall Street are a formidable lot, as they represent 99% of the 300,000,000 people of these United States, or 297,000,000 to be exact. For an equitable and balanced postulation of what is representative of the Occupy Wall Street syndicate, and by proxy 99% of the United States, and thus representative of the Tea Party per our President, an exact and accurate calculus must be employed.

Since the genetic make-up of Occupy Wall Street is liberal, the employment of the Democrat’s litmus test for determining what represents the make-up of a conservative group is imperative. Example: All Tea Party members are serial racists if one sign supporting racism could found at a rally of thousands; the lack of racial diversity at a Tea Party rally is empirical evidence of institutional racism; and when three members of an audience of 3,500 boo a gay soldier for asking about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at a Republican debate, the entire audience of 3,500 are irrefutably anti-gay and anti-military.

Without further ado, I present 15 things I have learned about the Tea Party from Occupy Wall Street:

1. The Tea Party and 99% of America will sell you heroin, crack, cocaine, marijuana, and any other illegal narcotic of your pleasure. 

Channing Kehoe, Occupier, spoke of the drugs, sexual assaults, and rapes among the occupiers in Zuccotti Park: “We’re trying to figure out what to do about the drugs.” A multitasking felon selling drugs and creating mayhem beyond the allowable level of mayhem at Occupy Wall Street was arrested for selling cocaine and punching a couple of women. A tent invader and Occupier, Garfield Leslie, was arrested for trying to sell baggies of cocaine to the occupants of a tent he decided to occupy at Occupy Wall Street. At Occupy Boston, two occupiers were arrested by undercover police for selling them heroin.

An interview of one of the Occupy Wall Street lamsters from the New York Post:

“I got warrants. I’m running from the law,” boasted Dave, 24, a scrawny, unshaven miscreant in filthy clothes from Stamford, Conn. “I’m not even supposed to be here, but it’s as good a spot as any to hide.”

Wanted for burglary, the drug-addled fugitive said some of his hard-partying pals clued him in that the protest was a good place to be fed, get wasted, and crash.

“I’ve been smoking and drinking in here for eight days now,” said Dave, booze on his breath and his eyes bloodshot as he lay sprawled on a tattered sheet of cardboard. “I need to get some methadone. Every day, I wake up, and I’m f–ked up.”

Dave Park from Stamford was arrested Monday by New York City police on charges of allegedly groping a woman at the protests, according to the New York Post.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

2. The Tea Party and 99% of America are racist.

The Tea Party’s lack of racial diversity and the perceived element of racism at the Tea Party rallies is empirical evidence all involved are racists. With just a perfunctory observation of video and photos of the illiberal pasty white Occupy Wall Street xenophobes, racism is conclusively rampant within their ranks.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

4. The Tea Party and 99% of America will shoot a white bitch.

At Occupy Oakland, KGO-TV reporter Amy Hollyfield, white bitch, was threatened by a rare and spontaneous racially diverse pistoleer, with assumed accomplices, who threatened, “We shoot white bitches like you around here.” Reported by various Bay Area news outlets, Occupy Oakland had descended into rat-infested squalor with complaints of vandalism, public urination, sexual harassment, sex in public, and of course the shooting of white bitches.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

5. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans will smell your girlfriend’s, wife’s, or sister’s feet if the aromatic appendage is exposed, and toast their olfactory exploits with a snifter of urine.

At Occupy Toronto (apparently they are part of the 99% also), a man was arrested for smelling a woman’s feet without invitation. Then, after a cursory groping of the Occupied woman, he invited all to toast his exploits by throwing back a shot of urine.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

6. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans will rape your wife, sister, girlfriend, or young daughter if forced to share an Occupied tent.

A 19-year-old Occupy Cleveland protester was raped in her tent after being directed by the overseers of Occupy Cleveland to allow cohabitation of her tent with a strange man calling himself “Leland.” Also, a 24-year-old convicted sex offender, and representative of 99% of Americans, was arrested for raping a 14-year-old girl at Occupy Dallas.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

7. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans will rob you blind if given half a chance.

Something so bizarre it rivals H.G. Wells’ imagination has happened within the confines of the Occupy Wall Street colonization. An unsavory gang of fellow protestors, who are representative of 99% of America, have been stealing cameras, laptop computers, mobile phones, food, and piles of cash. Nan Terrie, 18, kitchen worker/legal-team juggler stated, “Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment. I had my Mac stolen — that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone.”

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

8. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans filled local jails during the Tea Party rallies.

Occupy gangsters are being arrested in ever increasing numbers in each city they are menacing as their behavior is increasingly becoming more aggressive, and clashes against local law enforcement have reached riot levels in Oakland.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

9. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans will poop and urinate on your doorstep, then taunt you as you leave for work.

The arrogant and productive members of society living near Occupy Wall Street, the gainfully employed, homeowners, who eschew the colonizing of public parks, are greeted with urine and feces on their doorsteps each morning, then harangued as they leave for work. Catherine Hughes, conventional human, lives one block from Zuccotti Park: “They are defecating on our doorsteps. A lot of people are very frustrated. A lot of people are concerned about the safety of our kids.” James Fernandez, gainfully employed, stated, “The protesters taunt people who are on their way to work.”

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

10. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans will shoot to kill any government agent who violates their rights.

Copies of an Occupy assassin’s manifesto encouraging occupiers to kill police were distributed to the anarchists at Occupy Phoenix as they colonized Cesar Chavez Park, according to a Maricopa County Sheriff’s Deputy. The assassin’s manifesto encouraged the killing of any government agent who violates their rights for the following breeches: illegal search and seizure, sobriety and border checkpoints, airport security, and various other human rights violations.

And to the northeast, a young female agent of civility occupying Grand Rapids held a sign proclaiming, “The Only Good Cop Is A Dead Cop.”

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

11. The Tea Party and 99% of America will pimp your adolescent daughter out for prostitution.

At Occupy New Hampshire, Justina Jensen, Occupier and pimp, was charged with felony prostitution. Jensen met her promising teenage employee, “Jewel,” wandering the Occupy encampment. Occupier Justina, aka “Remy,” made arrangements with “Mad Mike” via the internets to “come have fun with four beautiful ladies “for $150. Unfortunately, “Mad Mike” was an undercover police officer, “Jewel” is sixteen years old, and Occupier Justina is incarcerated.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

 12. The Tea Party and 99% of America have created their own 1% within the 99%.

The 1% of the 99% now have their very own Big Bankers controlling the 99% of the 99%’s money. Occupy Wall Street’s Finance Committee, aka Occupy Big Banker, has tyrannical control of $500,000 of the 99% of the 99%’s money, and the cash continues to roll in. But as Big Bankers often do, Occupy Big Banker has an innate reluctance to share the wealth. Tempers are erupting from the 99% of the 99%. The drummers are in a high state of agitation because they can’t get funds from the Occupy Big Bank to replace their drums that were stolen by the other 99% of the 99%. The drummers are threatening to splinter off into a yet calculated percent of the 99%. Bryan Smith, Occupier, had not so kind words for the Occupy Big Bank: “F–k finance. I hope Mayor Bloomberg gets an injunction and demands to see the movement’s books. We need to know how much money we really have and where it’s going. The other day, I took in $2,000. I kept $650 for my group, and gave the rest to Finance. Then I went to them with a request — so many people need things, and they should not be going without basic comfort items — and I was told to fill out paperwork. Paperwork! Are they the government now?”

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama

13. The Jesus of the Tea Party and 99% of Americans would support the Occupy Wall Street occupation.

“What would Jesus think of Occupy Wall Street?” Lisa Miller of the Washington Post asked herself. “Jesus would have sympathy, I think, with the campers’ efforts to keep a small space sanitary in the absence of modern plumbing. Thus, he might have sympathy for the various causes espoused by the campers (end hydrofracking, tax the rich, support the unions, cap executive pay).”

Marisa Egerstrom, a graduate student at Harvard University, stated that if the Jesus of history could wander the precincts held by the occupiers and witnessed the rapes, smelling of feet, stealing, child prostitution, money changers, drug dealing, killing of police, pooping and urinating on doorsteps, booing of the employed, racism, and anti-Semitism, “He’d see his people. I think he would be pretty pleased.”

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama

14. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans want the Jews run out of America.

Patricia McAllister, anti-Semite and Occupier, an employee of the Los Angeles Unified School District, stated, “I think that the Zionist Jews, who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government . . . they need to be run out of this country.”

An Occupier who represents 99% of America chanted, “Jews control Wall Street,” while holding a sign that read, “Hitler’s Bankers – Wall St.” One Jewish passerby sporting a yarmulke was shouted at, “You’re a bum, Jew. Jewish money controls American politics. Gaza Supports The Occupation of Wall Street.”

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

15. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans are infected with STDs.

Nearby health clinics have standing room only with protesters being tested for STDs and HIV after copious sexual congress with anything willing, and according to arrest records, anything unwilling, to partake in the swapping of viruses and various bacteria. Occupiers manning the medical tent doled out $15 to $20 so those challenged with infected plumbing could be treated at nearby clinics for low income chaste challenged patrons.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

I cannot speak with experience as one of the 99%, as I am of the 1% elitist these 99% so vehemently want to destroy. I am a member of the 1% by virtue of the defining criteria of what constitutes a member of the 99%: I unfortunately missed the fortuitous opportunity of merchandising heroin, crack, cocaine, marijuana, and various other felonious pharmaceuticals; I am pretty certain I am not a racist; to the best of my recollection, have never, nor do I intend to shoot a white bitch; I have never partaken in the sniffing of a strange or known woman’s feet for gratification, and have certainly never toasted such an adventure with a glass of urine; I generally avoid raping; I can’t recollect ever robbing anyone; I have never had the pleasure of occupying a jail; if at all possible, I generally try to abstain from pooping on strangers’ doorsteps; I am not in a habit of jeering the employed as they trek to work; the thought of shooting a police officer when asked to show my driver’s license and insurance at a traffic stop has never really crossed my mind; I have never considered pimping adolescent girls as a vocation; I’ve never really put much thought into running all the Jews out of America; I generally do not become infected with STDs from wanton sex with unproductive strangers as a form of recreation; and I am pretty certain that the Jesus of the Bible would not approve of the aforementioned human retrogression.

I am also disqualified from the 99% club due to the severity of my handicap of believing that if someone has more than me, if I want what they have, I should work harder and smarter to achieve it. But these Occupiers would rather expend their energy with gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands about their station in life, and devising communistic methods of taking from those who have what they are either too lazy or incapable of accomplishing on their own.

For the entirety of his first two years, he tried to work with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Sure they colluded, then circumvented the Constitution and congressional protocol and made ObamaCare law without a vote in the Senate. But what the do-nothing Congress did not do was pass a budget in 2010, legalize gay marriage, grant amnesty to all illegal aliens, increase business regulations 100 fold, and significantly raise taxes on the wealthy–all things important to the progressive agenda. Is it no wonder federal spending was out of control, and Obama was forced to almost double the federal deficit; he did not have a budget to guide him. He can’t be faulted for that. Anyway, I could go on and on about how the Democratic Party controlled Congress and the White House, but accomplished nothing, but that would distract from the personal email I received from Barack Obama, and my courteous and counseled reply. He called me “friend.”

From: Barack Obama

Subject: Frustrated
Date: August 31, 2011 10:51:52 PM EDT
To: admin Office

Reply-To: info@barackobama.com

Friend–

Today I asked for a joint session of Congress where I will lay out a clear plan to get Americans back to work.

Next week, I will deliver the details of the plan and call on lawmakers to pass it.

Whether they will do the job they were elected to do is ultimately up to them.

But both you and I can pressure them to do the right thing. We can send the message that the American people are playing by the rules and meeting their responsibilities—and it’s time for our leaders in Congress to meet theirs.

And we must hold them accountable if they don’t.

So I’m asking you to stand with me in calling on Congress to step up and take action on jobs:
http://my.barackobama.com/Time-To-Act

No matter how things go in the weeks and months ahead, this will be an important challenge for our organization.

It’s been a long time since Congress was focused on what the American people need them to be focused on.
I know that you’re frustrated by that. I am, too.

That’s why I’m putting forward a set of bipartisan proposals to help grow the economy and create jobs—that means strengthening our small businesses, giving needed breaks to middle-class families, while taking responsible steps to bring down our deficit.

I’m asking lawmakers to look past short-term politics and take action on that plan. But we’ve got to do this together.

I will deliver this message to Congress next week, but I’m asking you to stand alongside me today:
http://my.barackobama.com/Time-To-Act

More to come,
Barack

After much cogitation, contemplation, and serious thinking, here is my reply directly to President Obama:

From: Jim Byrd

Subject: Very Frustrated
Date: September 02, 2011 11:59:59 PM EDT
To: Barack Hussein Obama

Reply-To: info@jimbyrd.com

Friend–

I am sure your job creation speech and proposition will be absolutely spectacular. How could it not? You have had two years and eight months to perfect it and address the unemployment issue. I understand that great things and great ideas take time to ruminate until fruition, especially within a great mind such as yours. I am certain that most Americans will not understand your logic, as it will certainly be “beyond their pay grade,” just as many are incapable of understanding your profound logic that the only way to reduce our national debt is to double what we borrow. Genius. But pay no mind to them, Mr. President.

I am still confused about the brouhaha that erupted regarding your wanting to save the country, slash unemployment by half, and showcase your job building prowess on television to the American people during a joint session of Congress next Wednesday at coincidentally the exact time of the Republican presidential debate. Coincidences are funny things, aren’t they? You told Congress that you are showing up with teleprompter and television cameras in tow to address Congress next Wednesday, and that should be the end of it. The lack of respect from the Republicans is appalling, don’t you agree?

These Republicans and Tea Partiers are gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands about some silly archaic precedent that needs to be followed before you can address a joint session of Congress. Something about the House of Representatives and the Senate being required to adopt a concurrent resolution to allow a joint session of Congress to receive the President. I have never heard of such a thing, and I am sure neither have you, especially since you served in the Senate. You have to be invited? You are the President, you should be able to just tell them when you will be there, then show up. Just last month while seeking Hispanic votes, you told La Raza, “Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting.” So just do it. And so what if Congress has three hours of voting scheduled on their first day back starting at 6:30. They should come back a day early and take care of that business. After all, you cut short your latest vacation to take control of Hurricane Irene. Seems like a fair trade-off to me.

I also hope that Congress will do the job they were elected to do as do you. So far the Republicans have been doing exactly what they were elected to do: keep taxes low, reduce the debt, try and reduce government regulations so businesses can create jobs, and a sundry of other nefarious things the Tea Party is demanding of them. It is the Republicans doing the dirty work of the Tea Party and the vast majority of the American people who elected them in an unprecedented sweep in the 2010 elections that is thwarting your ability to lead this nation down a nuanced and understandingly sustained delayed path to prosperity.

You are correct, “it has been a long time since Congress was focused on what the American people need them to be focused on.” What has it been, 25 days or so since they left for their summer recess? That is far too long to not focus on what the American people overwhelmingly elected them to focus on in the 2010 elections. You should be able to call them back. If I were you, I would have called both John Boehner and Harry Reid from the fairways of Martha’s Vineyard and demanded they return to Washington, D.C. and focus.

We all look forward to your bipartisan proposal to finally grow this economy and create many jobs. But please do not make the same mistake as with your last stimulus package. In the sage words of uber-Keynesian and Nobel Prize for Economics winner Paul Krugman regarding your trifling $800 billion stimulus package, “I’d like to see it bigger. I understand that there’s difficulty in actually spending that much money, and I–they’re also afraid of the–of the T word. They’re afraid of a trillion dollar for the two-year number.” Well, since there was not much difficulty in spending that $800 billion, and fast, please think on a grander scale next time around.

I have a few suggestions for you if you decide to implement another stimulus package:

Remember that stimulus grant you gave to the Nevada Clark County Urban Forestry Revitalization Project? The one where you were going to revitalize urban neighborhoods in Clark County with trees, plants, and whatnots. And don’t forget the green-industry training as well. Well, you only gave them $500,000 to plant some trees to stimulate their economy, and it resulted in only 1.72 jobs. Can 1.72 be considered plural? I’ll have to check on that. Imagine if you had spent $1 billion in Clark County. That would be 2000 jobs created. I am sure that is plural, but I am not so sure what the county would look like with a billion dollars’ worth of trees and such. I will check with a landscaper and get back with you.

Remember your $2.4 billion to advance car batteries? Johnson Controls, Inc. in Holland, Michigan got $300 million of that stimulus money. It created 150 jobs. Now that is getting closer to spectacular. Only $2,000,000 per job created. Imagine if it was $300 billion. That is 150,000 jobs that you would have created. But keep in mind the rule of economies of scale. I am sure that if you spent $300 billion, the cost per job would drop to at the most $1,650,000 per job. I am sure you will agree that is quite the bargain.

Remember the $500 million you gave to Solyndra for some “shovel ready” jobs producing solar panels? Well, as you may know, they filed bankruptcy and the stimulus money actually produced 1,100 employees who just lost their jobs. But this is a double positive for you. I am working on an algorithm that will calculate the exact dollar amount that the layoff of 1,100 employees will stimulate the economy and create jobs. The serendipity of the possibilities of a positive economic impact from these 1,100 layoffs is almost immeasurable. Hear me out:

Your very own Nancy Pelosi enumerated the benefits of unemployment insurance:

“It injects demand into the economy… is a job creator. This is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and is job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name because, again, it is money that is needed for families to survive, and it is spent.”

And your very own Press Secretary, Jay Carney, said, “There are few other ways that can directly put money into the economy than applying unemployment insurance.”

And don’t forget what your very own Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, just recently stated regarding food stamps: “Food Stamps have contributed to job growth in the private sector for 17 consecutive months and serve as a form of economic stimulus, and having people on food stamps acts as a stimulus, creating $1.84 for every dollar spent.”

And you have said yourself, “It’s probably the biggest boost that we can give an economy because those folks are most likely to spend the money with businesses, and that gives them customers.”

So the stimulating effect of the 1,100 unemployed Solyndra workers if they file for unemployment benefits and Food Stamps, according to your calculations, could be the equivalent of 10,000 jobs. Be sure to mention that in your speech. That will knock them over.

So in conclusion, I am anticipating your speech next Wednesday, I mean Thursday now, right? I will certainly have my DVR programmed to record your speech in its entirety, as I, along with most of the nation, and members of Congress, will be watching the NFL’s opening night with the Saints vs. the Packers. You have already created a mini economic stimulus of sorts, as there was a run on smart phones and ear-buds at the Georgetown Best Buy by congressional members. Although I am certain it was not for the purpose of video streaming the NFL game during your speech.

More to come,

Jim

The state of Illinois will save about $2.4 million per year by not testing junior level writing with standardized testing in the spring. In an auspicious move last year, the state suspended writing tests for elementary and middle school students, crossing their fingers and hoping this would foster another Twain or Hemingway.

The Illinois Schools Superintendent, Christopher Koch, stated, “writing is one of the most expensive things to assess.” He later lamented, “Have you seen the expense of grading math tests?….If we eliminated testing for mathematics we could save an extra, I don’t know, maybe $30 gazillion….We have kids wanting to become doctors, engineers, and scientists, and for every dollar wasted on testing for the ability to write a coherent sentence, is a dollar not spent on the essentials needed to succeed at these professions.”

When asked to produce his statement in writing for accuracy when quoting, Koch sent an email of his statements:

riting is 1 of the most xpensiv things to asses  have u ceen the xpens of gradin math tets  we hav kids wantn to becom doktors inguners and cientests and for evry dolar wasted on testn for the abilty to rite a coherant sentunce is a dolr not spent on the esenshuls neded at thes profesuns.

Illinois State board of Education Spokesman Matt Vanover chimed in with his assessment of the painstaking effort of ascertaining whether Illinois students can write proficiently:

It is a subjective, imprecise grading manner, especially for teachers without a fundamental grasp of grammar and writing. We are forced to with the daunting task finding union teachers with the ability to read and write. Then each teacher needs to read these writing tests, comprehend them, and assign a grade to something, quite frankly, they probably don’t have a clue what it means or if there are actually any grammar errors. Listen, this is the state of Illinois, home of the city of Chicago. If we can teach these kids the ability to examine a voting ballot, find the candidate with a “D” next to their name, then scrawl an “X” next to it, does it really matter if they can read or write?

When asked about the Advanced Placement exams and the SAT requirements for writing, Vanover said that President Obama would give the state of Illinois wavers exempting students from the required writing portions of the SAT and Advanced Placement tests, much as he did for healthcare waivers, but added, “as long as Obama’s polling numbers are in the positive.”

There was one silver lining regarding this academic Armageddon. Heather Schwartz, a teacher at Omar Torres Charter School in Chicago, stated the following:

I think it offers some freedom. In my math classes, my students are not pressured by the constraints of conventional absolutes. If a student of mine thinks that 2 + 2 = 5, who am I to say it is wrong? That child is free, and experiences a freedom not found in most educational institutions that place too much emphasis on correct answers. No one can take that away from them. My classes are the happiest on campus, and all the kids want to join my class.

Illinois, the state that spawned Hope and Change, indeed.

Weiner,46, has been a member of the House of Representatives from New York’s 9th congressional district since 1999, served on the New York City Council from 1992 to 1998, and was an aide to former U.S. Representative Schumer from 1985 to 1991. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from State University of New York at Plattsburgh. Anthony Weiner has lived off taxpayer money since graduating college, is devoid of any functional, usable, or demanded skill, and has never produced, created, or contributed anything of constructive value, and thus had no choice other than to resist resigning.

As with all liberals, other than committing crimes of such a nature as cutting taxes, budgeting, and following the Constitution, he can count on supporters. Perennial nihilist Richard Cohen, scrivener for the propagandist Washington Post, compares the Jewish Weiner to Christians and lions: “Another Christian has been thrown to the lions. The ‘Christian’ in this case is a Jew, and the lions are the news media but the general idea is the same.” Cohen’s statement is contemptible, incoherent, and offensive as he, and is no different than if he had stated the following: “Another black man has been lynched in the South, but the ‘black man’ in this case was a white man, and the rope was a refrigerator but the general idea is the same.”

Charlie Rangel was quick to assess the situation with his usual Socrates-esque philosophy:”He wasn’t going out with little boys. Other members of Congress had done things more immoral than Weiner.” At which point, Barney Frank, with his back to Rangel, but within earshot, did a flawless pirouette, and before he could open his mouth, Rangel said, “It wasn’t about you.”

Understanding Weiner’s nemesis and the agent of morality:

The crusader of morality, Ginger Lee, was able to resist Weiner’s sophisticated coercion and the graphic description of the instrument that had recently been complicit in impregnating his wife, to respond in kind. She was able to re-direct the conversations toward a more genteel and intellectual nature–a refined and cultivated characteristic she probably acquired in finishing school and continues to display with her current occupation. Ms. Lee, through the facilitation of her attorney Gloria Allred–the representative of the ignoble and plebeian–was able to present her apologia via a turnkey press conference. Once Weiner-gate went viral, Ginger Lee was compelled to speak, but only for the sanctity of the truth and definitely not for the media exposure for her “featured performer” artistic tour: “I think Anthony Weiner should resign because he lied to the public and the press for more than a week. It might never have turned into this if he had told the truth, but he kept lying.”

The only thing incredulous about her statement is she had the courage to go on record alleging a career politician lied to the public and the press for more than a week.

Lee continued:

We exchanged about 100 messages or so, and anytime that he would take our communication in a sexual direction, I did not reciprocate. I couldn’t. How could I? I knew that I couldn’t lie for him, but I couldn’t be the one who kicked him under the bus. I had not yet met Gloria. Once it got to a point that he lied on national television, then I knew that anything I said after that would have to be either a lie or an admission. I didn’t want to do either. It’s not like, you know, I’m doing that now. So once my names became public and I was associated with a dirty sex scandal, I received like a 100 phone calls, messages, flowers, and a $500 gift card to Walmart from Gloria Allred. I finally just called her back, and we just hit it off. It was like we just had so much in common.

Ginger Lee came into this world November 25, 1983 as Tonya Short. One of the characteristics of most Americans of stature and elite social hierarchy is to have a trail of aliases. Tonya Short, aka Ginger Lee, aka Abbie Lebon, aka Ginger Vicious, aka Candace Raines, and aka Tonya Trzebny, is no exception.

In her selfless quest to spread morality and education to a specific segment of the populace, she has sacrificed her time, effort, and body to make films of an educational and public awareness genre. She has been a “featured performer” dealing with various subject matters in her 50+-filmography career. Although I have never personally reviewed any of her films, the titles and the depth of her character manifest the content. A truncated list of her contributions, film titles, and their subject matter:

My Dirty Angel. Tonya Trzebny is able to put to use the Doctor of Divinity degree, or Divinitatis Doctor–as she refers to it when exercising her Latin–she received from The University of Oxford, which she acquired during her stay in England. This is obviously a reference about stumbling upon an angel, dirty and disheveled from being disoriented and lost and wandering the mean streets of Macon, Georgia. In the mode of the movie Splash, and the television series Mork and Mindy, family-friendly hijinks ensue.

Beaver Hunt 4. Ginger Vicious’ master’s degree in Zoology and ethological training comes in handy in this heartwarming family-friendly documentary about a group of young and socially conscience scientists who have their physical and emotional limits tested while studying a family of beavers that have erected a damn blocking a crucial water supply for a small town. To save the town, they would have to ravage the beaver’s dam, and to save the beavers and their damn, they would have to leave the town impotent without water.

Swallow This. Candace Raines is able to use her advanced degree in Ornithology and her Doctor of Veterinary Medicine in this documentary about the quest to capture and administer oral antibiotics to a family of barn swallows suffering from a rare form of an avian bacterial infection (Allredebus famehorebus), which is causing the swallows to migrate to a Los Angeles television station, forsaking their natural habitat and breeding grounds.

Stuffin Young Muffins 5. Abbie Lebon is documented just days from earning her Master of Liberal Arts at the Le Cordon Bleu School of Culinary Arts. Her culinary magnum opus is a delectable and savory serving of muffins stuffed with various sweets and a dash of forbidden fruit. It takes a very adventurous palate to appreciate a freshly stuffed muffin, as revealed in this charming and enlightening documentary.

Gloria Allred can serve two immediate and necessary functions for Ginger Lee, aka Abbie Lebon, Ginger Vicious, Candace Raines, and Tonya Trzebny: first, to act as a firewall between the above group of legitimate personalities Tonya Short has cultivated through the years, and the undeserved pejoratives being associated with the various entities, such as “porn star,” “stripper,” and “prostitute,” and second, to broker and negotiate film and appearance deals so the group can cash-in before the customary 15 minutes are up, and 15 minutes of infamy is Gloria Allred’s specialty.

Ginger Lee is a performer and refused to call herself a stripper during one of Gloria Allred’s turnkey news conferences. A “featured performer” is what she insists on being referred as–just as one would refer to a professional ballerina. During her non-sexual and purely political messages to Weiner, Lee referred to herself as the “most famous stripper in America right now.” But as Allred countered, “That is just hearsay and should be disregarded and stricken from the record.”

The entire entourage of Ginger Lee, Abbie Lebon, Ginger Vicious, Candace Raines, and Tonya Trzebny will be taking their morality show on the road, as should all sophisticated moralists, by performing in a nude, writhing, and gyrating non-sexual manner in a room of inebriated men with fists full of dollars. They made their first appearance at the most cosmopolitan and elegant of establishments in Atlanta, Georgia, the Pink Pony gentleman’s club. They were the “featured performer.” Tony Short and her band of morally crippled “performers” will do fine until relegated to the dustbin of irrelevance, as have all of Allred’s 15 minutes of notoriety clientele.

Ginger Lee has a website/blog that lists the various urbane performing arts she will perform for money: “Feature Dancing, Fashion Nudes, Art Nudes, Glamour and Glamour Nudes, Interviews, Lingerie. Please don’t send me media/interview/press questions through this profile, contact my attorney, Gloria Allred.”

And for poor under-qualified Weiner, no sooner than he had pulled his pants back up, he had a job offer. He received a legitimate letter from Larry Flynt: “After having learned of your sudden and compelled resignation from your Congressional post, I would like to make you an offer of employment at Flynt Management Group, LLC in our internet group.”

Flynt elaborated, “This offer is not made in jest,” and he is “willing to pay twenty percent more than your former Congressional salary, ensuring that your medical benefits would be equal to what you were previously receiving.”

So a very happy ending for all. Ginger Lee et al. are able to perform in her chosen field of artistry, Anthony Weiner has received a generous job offer for what may be the only job a career politician is qualified for outside prison or the mafia, and the preeminent headline-seeking attorney was once again in the national spotlight, and again was able to demonstrate that she can be seedier than any client she represents.

The Back-Story

The 1960s was the golden era for police officers; the era was simple, being technologically impoverished of police dash-cams, readily accessible camcorders, cell phones, cell phones with video, and 911. The police could employ the concept of mathematical probability by profiling suspected perpetrators to keep the streets safe. Police brutality and excessive force cases were reserved for the most genteel of society, thus preventing the shackling of police from taking corporal action against protesters that were interrupting the flow of society, burning draft cards, holding sit-ins, etc, but most importantly, it was not considered excessive force for the police to rough up a few hippies here and there. The 60s was a time when flagellating hippies for sport was practiced by the most aristocratic of society to the garden variety redneck. It was quite commonplace for an urbane family to go out for an afternoon Sunday drive, and the father to pull the car over and say excuse me to the wife and kids, exit the car, walk up to a hippie meandering about town, punch the hippie, get back into the car, and continue their drive.

After forty years, a plethora of civil rights laws, hate crime laws, and the Endangered Species Act, there are just too many laws protecting hippies. They have pretty much faded away, become Democrats, or migrated to the state of California and reproduced like rabbits, with the majority of pedigreed hippies contained in the city of Berkeley: citizens, University of California at Berkeley staff and students, and the perpetually inane city council of Berkeley.

The Catalyst

After announcing that bin Laden had been killed by U.S. military forces, and the subsequent celebratory antics across the nation, something snapped in the noggin of one Isaac Eslava. Eslava may or may not be a student at Louisiana State University, and is the proud possessor of American and Colombian citizenship. Eslava thought it would be a good idea, and his protected right under the 1st Amendment, to burn an American flag to demonstrate his disdain for the killing of Osama bin Laden. Eslava’s constitutional journey began on shaky ground when the object of his ignorance was the American flag he pilfered from a war memorial–you know the type of memorial: memorializing the men and women who died defending this country. His stealing a car to get to the memorial and artistically defacing some off campus apartments with black spray paint, and having drug paraphernalia in the stolen car, is not quite what I am envisioning the founders’ intentions of the 1st Amendment were. Well, after burning someone else’s flag, stealing a car, vandalizing an apartment building, and possessing drug paraphernalia, he showed up at the LSU police department and turned himself in. He was charged with felony criminal damage to property, arson, various other crimes against society, and lack of common sense.

The Result

Whatever snapped in Isaac Eslava’s head that lead to his stealing a memorial flag and burning it, and his subsequent arrest, also caused some wiring to short-out in the cerebral command center of one Benjamin Haas, a hippie.

Mr. Haas, being a hippie, was compelled to burn the American flag in the name of “due process for students and suspected terrorists alike.” Being rather obdurate and half-witted–which after 40 years and several generations, is arguably a congenital trait caused by a genetic flaw in hippies–Haas got his permit from LSU to burn the flag, but was crushed under the weight of the very bureaucracies his brethren on the left created–he was without the burn permit he needed from the city.

So there Mr. Haas stood, with his hipster spectacles, hipster jeans and shirt, slovenly hair and matching beard, sans American flag, lighter fluid, and matches; this contrasted against the red, white, and blue apparel of the very agitated mob of over 2000 patriots waving the American flag–patriots whom he invited by advertising his event on Facebook. The angry patriots were organized by the LSU Student Government Association as a counter-demonstration to this anti-American demonstration.

There Mr. Haas stood, rather pathetic looking, with his nervous and shaky voice, apparently anxious and uncomfortable body language, his glances darting behind his hipster glasses, and casting furtive glances about the ever increasing agitated crowd. His face could not mask his fear. Haas was continually forced to move about by the encroaching mob as he was trying to start his speech. His partially read prepared speech:

Funny Facebook said that there were only going to be 64 of you. I initially began this flag burning protest to defend due process for students and suspected terrorists alike, to call on LSU and universities across the country to defend basic human rights and avoid putting students into the criminal justice system when it can be taken care of internally.

Then all hell broke loose when the jingoists started exercising their 1st Amendment rights by shouting, “USA. USA. USA. Go To Hell Hippie, Go To Hell,” and myriad other protected expletives, ^&$*&, %$(#, and some (&(&*#,  were hurled at Haas. It really got nasty when the crowd, worked into a frenzy by exercising their freedom of speech rights, then systematically started exercising their freedom of expression rights by pelting the hippie with water balloons, ice, food products, and any whatnot that could be expressed by being hurled. Then the horseback mounted police officers moved in to attempt to keep the peace. Then, mid-speech, as the crowd started rushing Haas, mounted police officers intervened and herded Haas to a squad car; with the flag-waving multitude in hot pursuit, Haas was rushed away before the crowd could grab him, and I suspect cleanse him with water balloons.

The Epilogue

Benjamin Haas is a typical unexceptional, unprincipled, and uneducated malcontent, and whatever he hoped to achieve from his flag burning stunt would have been for naught, as his proclaimed reasons were illegitimate. Haas and his ilk do what they do just for the sake of causing disturbance, and veil their reasons in non-factual and fantastical arguments. In his prepared speech, Haas gave his reason to burn the flag as to defend due process for students and suspected terrorists alike, to call on LSU and universities across the country to defend basic human rights and avoid putting students into the criminal justice system when it can be taken care of internally. He was referring to Isaac Eslava’s arrest, but considering that Eslava, or Idiot Number One in this screed, turned himself in to the police, was booked, and will be released on bail until a trial or plea, Eslava’s case could be referred to as picture-book due process. It would be a feat of the unconquerable to even attempt to understand what Haas’s reasoning is regarding due process in this case. And it can be supposed that he is defending due process for bin Laden when he mentions due process for suspected terrorists. In regard to Haas’s plea for the Eslava caper to be taken care of internally, the warrant was with the campus police, and Eslava turned himself in to the campus police; that is about as internal as this crime could be handled. It is apparent that Haas was just doing what malcontents do: being subversive without a legitimate reason or cause.

From a historical viewpoint, the crowd was exceptionally well behaved and profoundly civil, considering that if some grungy little coward had taken down the flag of the United States and burned it during or after the Revolutionary War, the primeval hippie would have received the thrashing of his life, been tarred and feathered, and then probably just exterminated; and the men responsible for writing the 1st Amendment, well, if they were present, would have probably applauded the effort of subversion getting a beat-down.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present Mr. Clarence Duda’s entreaty:

Governor Walker and the republicans and who it may concern,

My name is Clarence Duda. I am writing this from the steps of the capitol. I am proud to be from Wisconsen and have lived in Milwalke my entire 30 years and graduated with honors from Pulaski High in 2007. As you may know Pulaski High was names after Genrarl Kazimierz Pulaski. My history teacher Mrs. Walczak taught us that if not for Genrarl Pulaski we wood not have a country because he saved George Washington his life. He also fought along side George Washington in the revolutionary war and rescued Wisconsen from the Red Coats and that king.

I am also proud to inform you that I am an 8th grade teacher at the Anna F. Doerfler School in Milwalke, the very same school I graduated from middle school I did. I teach english and music and take my job very seriously.

I have red the news and saw it on the t.v. I was looking at msnbc and they was telling everyone that the republicans and governor Walker hated the teachers the fireman and cops. But especially hated us teachers because he wants to force us to pay for our retirment and insurance now that the state is running out of money.

So Governor Walker and Republicans, I hope you can understand why I am upset. I am also very upset because that fox new channel and the newpapers and the republicans are saying that Milwalke is one of the worst school discticts in the country. They are saying that just because the department of education says that too thirds of our 8th grade students, my very students if you can believe that, can’t read or write profencently, it is the teachers fault. Even my fault. Well their may be some bad worms in the apple, but I can tell you it aint me.

You want to take 5.8% away from my check for my retirement and 12.6% for my insurance if I get sick. Did you actually realize that is almost 42% of my entire check? Don’t think you can trick me with your fancy arithmetic, beause I had the numbers tested by Doerflers math staff, and just to prove the National Assessment of Education Progress was wrong in there testing saying that Milwalke schools are 61% were below proficient in math there numbers matched mine exactly. You want to take half my income and do who knows what with it. How does that benifit me now or in the future? I have to be worried about my future. And you want to destroy our unions who cares so much about us teachers as long as our dues are current.

You say the state is going broke if you dont take money from our checks. And I say what are taxes for? Taxes are for taking some money from the rich people, not the poor. Go get you’re money from the rich people and leave us alone.

Me and all of the teachers at Doerfler are considered very civil and grasious, but I can hold my tounge no more. Governor Walker, you are just the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, and you are as evil as those rich slave owning atheists that started this country just to make themselves richer by taken advantage of the poor. And the republicans are no better than you. If I was a democrate in the congress I  guess I would leave the state to out of embarrassment of you. And you know those congress people have unions to, how else could they leave the state while they are supposed to be working, traveling to other states, and still get paid and not get fired.

Well, that is all I have to say, and I speak on behalve of all the Wisconsen teachers, especially from Milwalke.

Clarence Duda 8th grade english and music teacher.

The above picture shows Justice Greenberg exercising her freedom of expression when asked the following question: Do you believe that the Constitution should be interpreted through strict constructionism to achieve the original meaning of the founders?

Rat-a-tat-tat. Rat-a-tat-tat. The bursts of the cerebral Uzi discharging are still ringing through the halls of constitutional intelligentsia. This random, awkward firing is not the literal discharge of machine gun projectiles, but rather the suspicious preteritions scattered about between the start and the end of the amorphous sentences of the ensuing constitutional masterpiece, by means of recreational ellipses. Rat-a tat-tat. What wealth of information was strategically omitted in the void of the ellipsis? It is surely something of unquantifiable value, as this cerebral triggerman is a known quantity among the erudite as Meghan McCain has engineered the litmus test for one’s compelling relevance per Twitter or Facebook followers or friends. The author we are celebrating has 2821 friends on Facebook, multiplying rapidly; therefore, this author is relevant, knowledgeable, and a legitimate intellectual force majeure.

The author, Michael Gacki, proprietor of “Thoughts by Gacki,” has sent a shock wave through the society of constitutional scholars and practitioners, causing them to question the very foundation of their scholarship with his article titled, “How free is speech in the US?”

It would be a natural assumption that the gravity of the 1st Amendment case Snyder v. Phelps, currently before the Supreme Court, was weighing heavily on the author’s mind and heart while penning his pièce de résistance. If the court rules against the Westboro Baptist Church, and the church loses its ability to congregate around the perimeter of private military funerals and shout obscenities in the name of God at the deceased and family, then this case could be the catalyst that would drive the author into the catacombs of a dark, dark place.

Please be forewarned, due to this article’s esoteric composition, it will be necessary for me to elucidate the gaping unknowns left by the rat-a-tat-tats for the neophyte constitutionalists.

The profound penumbra within title of this avant-garde discourse is unmistakable, “How free is speech in the US?” It is obvious the author’s intentions are to knock the reader off kilter with this disorienting title, as this would give the author a measure of control over the reader’s psyche during the course of the article. Is the word “speech” in the title referring to free admission to an oratory spectacle in some concert hall? Is the author referring to US [sic], as all of us as a nation, or did he mean the United States? I must say, the suspense is very kilter knocking, as my psyche feels vulnerable, and I am reeling in my chair as I write.

The first sentence: “It isn’t really that free….” Now there has obviously been some type of bait-and-switch with the promised free admission price to a speech; does this now mean that there will be a nominal fee for the speech? Rat-a-tat-tat.

The author now directs our attention to the more substantive areas of the article, and the obvious breech of the 1st Amendment is highlighted: “An NFL coach flips an official the ‘bird’ and gets fined $40K??!!…..really? FREE SPEECH?”

During the author’s understandable rage, he held the trigger a little too long, and not only did he release a rat-a-tat-tat, but two extra tat-tats for good measure. A five-dot ellipsis can only mean there were myriad thoughts swirling around inside his head regarding the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, past and current constitutional case law, the 1st Amendment and its application to private companies, and of course, the price of admission to a speech.

It is perfectly understandable that the author is outraged by the audacity of a private organization, such as the NFL, to fine a coach who violated their code of conduct on national television with a commonly accepted vulgar expression. But what the untrained eye cannot detect is that the author has done something that is so inconceivable, so valiant, no one has ever attempted it–he arranged a 5-dot ellipsis outside the parameters of double question marks and double exclamation marks. At first glance, it appears a simple case of truculent grammar usage. But what the author, and now renowned physicist, has created with those 5 little dots is a wormhole into a space-time continuum. The casual reader sees double question marks, double exclamation marks, and 5 unidentifiable dots, but actually it is a wormhole containing 272 words that would take the reader two minutes to read, digest, and understand its complexity. But with the wormhole, the reader can comprehend the 272 words in 1/1000th of a second. One serendipitous advantage this author has over Newton, Einstein, and Hawkins is the employment of untutored grammar–which explains why the afore mentioned geniuses, and proficient writers, were never able to employ the manipulation of time and space.

Here is what the author obviously had ricocheting around his head when he created the wormhole with his super-ellipsis:

• There is no 1st Amendment right of speech in the private sector, so until Barack Obama nationalizes the NFL, the coach’s gesture is not protected.
• The coach, who signed a very specific code of conduct with the NFL, is bound by the rules of conduct and subsequent punishment for violating the rules. The code of conduct to which the coach agreed requires him to avoid conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League. This conduct requirement applies to the following: players, coaches, other team employees, owners, game officials, and all others privileged to work in the National Football League. Discipline may take the form of fines, suspension, or banishment from the League and may include a probationary period and conditions that must be satisfied prior to or following reinstatement.
• Throughout American constitutional law, there are exceptions to free speech. The exceptions are obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, “fighting words,” and sedition.
• Bethel School District v. Fraser
• Miller v. California, which set the following standard for exceptions to freedom of speech: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
• What would the ramifications be if the first eight amendments had not been incorporated into the 14th Amendment by various knavish Supreme Courts?

Is the genius of this that obvious?

Every single piece of information stored in the wormhole would cause the assumption that the coach’s vulgar gesture was not protected by the 1st Amendment. But our author obviously subscribes to that old adage, Knowledge is the ability to accept or reject what is being presented as knowledge. Most constitutional scholars cannot see the forest for the trees. What our author has done is take a giant step back, removing himself from the trees to enhance his perspective. He then took another step. Then another. Then the forest and trees disappeared over the hill and beyond the horizon. It is the mark of genius when one can become so erudite on a subject, and yet be so far removed from the subject matter, that it is almost as if he never knew anything about the subject in the first place. It is scientifically feasible to become a genius on any subject matter using this prescribed method, as the world is abundant with this caliber of genius.

Moving on from the space-time continuum, we arrive at the quintessence of the angst, which can apparently haunt someone his entire life: “People are reprimanded or fired from jobs everyday for voicing their opinions….not really free.” (Side note: do not be alarmed by the 4-dot ellipsis; in this case, it is just abhorrent grammar.) What the author is beseeching this country to rectify is that each individual should be protected by the entire Bill of Rights in the workplace. Say what they want, when they want, assemble as needed, establish a religion and convert the break-room into a church if they so choose, brandish firearms in their cubicles, not be forced to quarter troops in their offices, and have their offices and desks protected from a search by their boss without a warrant. If asked by management if they did a follow-up call on a client, they should be able to plead the 5th; if being terminated or reprimanded, request a jury of their peers (co-workers). Being fired or demoted should be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

And finally, the declaratory statement that we should all heed, as our very lives depend on preparedness: “We are all surrounded by assassins”

Two oddities in this statement that will surely set in motion a worldwide tsunami of conspiracy theories: As bizarre as it seems, the statement does not contain an ellipsis, and the sentence does not have a stopping point. But there is one valid point to this grammatically deformed statement: the latest Gallup Poll suggests that .5% of all Americans, and 100% of all schizophrenics, believe…they…are…surrounded…by…assassins….

So in conclusion, just as Justice Potter Stewart stated in his opinion in the 1st Amendment case Jacobellis v. Ohio regarding the definition of pornography: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.” I apply it to ignorance, and I know it when I see it!!………….